TOPIC: Northfin fish food

Independent testing is basically irrelevant as it only applies at a single point in time to a specific batch. Levels of preservatives will fluctuate between batches. The only thing we have to go on are governments continually testing products. With an Ethoxyquin ban being implemented in the EU, it becomes in the best interest of companies to start utilizing Ethoxyquin free meals.

Here in the U.S., it basically becomes impossible to know if you are feeding an Ethoxyquin free food or not. All we can hope for is that companies take the same road NLS has identified. In order to sell product in the EU it will have to be free of ethoxyquin. Instead of two different manufacturing processes, one using ethoxyquin treated meals stateside and one using ethoxyquin free meals for sale in the EU, they just adopt "Ethoxyquin Free" universally.

But all we really have to go on are the words of the manufacturer.

Northfin remains a quality food. It contains no more or less Ethoxyquin than basically anyone else has historically contained within their foods. Until (unless) we start seeing some benefits of the EU restrictions, finding a truly ethoxyquin free food is basically impossible, unfortunately.

I need to follow up on where NLS is with this implementation. NLS is sold in the EU, so their development of an EQ free food is paramount to continuing those sales. I don't know if Northfin is sold in Europe.... and how BREXIT affects this.

Independent testing is basically irrelevant as it only applies at a single point in time to a specific batch. Levels of preservatives will fluctuate between batches.

I’ll disagree to an extent on this one. Yes, you are absolutely correct that a test only gives you a snapshot in time of an individual batch, but any single test which shows a result which is at odds with a manufacturer’s claim (ie preservative found in a “preservative-free” product, excessively high levels of a chemical of concern, etc) in itself has the potential to add considerably to a consumer’s understanding of the integrity of that company’s claims, and/or the veracity of their quality assurance systems.

kmuda wrote:

Northfin remains a quality food. It contains no more or less Ethoxyquin than basically anyone else has historically contained within their foods.

Do we really know this? If we believe the test results which came to light 12 months ago (with real emphasis on the “IF”), is there any evidence of similar levels of preservatives in other brands? Do we have any evidence of other products containing ethoxyquin levels above guidelines? I’ve seen the results published by NLS (albeit provided by a body with an immense vested interest) which indicate far lower levels in their product. I suspect that if other parties had contrary data then it too would have surfaced by now.

My reading of the situation is that this particular Northfin product was targeted purely because of the very high level of imported krill listed in the ingredients list (coupled with the manufacturer’s preservative free claims). I personally think it unlikely that foods with lower percentages of high-fat meals would contain similar levels of ethoxyquin which entered via the ingredient chain.

I’m still fence sitting to a degree here. In my view there is still a real question mark over the preservative issue with Northfin. I personally don’t have a major issue with presence of preservatives in foods providing they are within reasonable levels. To my way of thinking, I’d rather see moderate levels of an effective preservative and have a high degree of confidence I’m not poisoning my fish with rancid food (a situation I have personally experienced with a New Era / Vitalis product). It’s a case of the lesser of two evils. Questions of affordability of the product also comes into the equation.

Having said that though, I do have real issues regarding lack of honesty and integrity in marketing. The fish food market is highly competitive, and companies will make claims to be seen to be different in an attempt to gain greater market share. Too often those claims are misleading. Occasionally they are down-right lies.

As I say, I still have real doubts over the preservative issues with Northfin, but when I couple that with other “irregularities” in info provided by the company, it does rather strengthen those doubts. Here is one such discrepancy:

All of the published data I’ve found indicates krill meals have a crude fat content of between 8 and 25%, with Antarctic krill meal having a higher fat content than many other krill sources.

The Northfin Fry Starter product, which is advertised as being 100% Whole Antarctic Krill Meal, lists crude fat (min) content of 14%. Remembering that this figure is a guaranteed minimum value, this is pretty much in line with the published data.

Using the information from the Fry Starter product, and some very basic maths, I would expect to see the quoted minimum fat content at around 12% in a product made from 85% whole Antarctic Krill meal. If I’m missing something really fundamental here, please point me in the right direction!

I’ve had no response from Northfin on this question to date, but I await their response with eager anticipation. I do wonder if this is further evidence of the company pandering to what it believes the customer wants to see, rather than being up-front and honest about their product. Yes, a product with a typical fat level of say 15% or 20% still meets a description of “5% minimum fat”, but that description is potentially rather misleading to a consumer who is attempting to assess that information to make an informed decision on suitability for their particular requirements.

As you say kmuda, other than the regulators, there is no real watchdog. I’m guessing that in many/most jurisdictions, foods for ornamental fish are pretty low on the priority list. Unless a product were specifically brought to authorities’ attention, they are unlikely to be regularly scrutinised. Taking that thought a step further, I wonder if there is a place for an independent body to undertake a level of testing of products as a service to the hobby? I wonder if there would be support for such a venture from the hobby through crowd funding? Just blurting out some thought bubbles to perhaps encourage further discussion.

Nortthfin is not adding Ethoxyquin to their product. It's being introduced by the meals in use. There are only a (very) limited number of suppliers of Krill meal. Anyone using those same suppliers will be introducing the same level of Ethoxyquin into their foods as was found in Northfin's foods. Which is why I don't consider what was discovered in Northfin's foods as much a slight against Northfin as it is against the Industry in general. Granted, Northfin stated an in inaccuracy but from my conversations with other companies, they really did not claim anything else others have claimed in that they work under the belief that if they are not adding it then they don't have to claim it. This is erroneous.... and yes, Northfin was misleading in communications with me as I specifically asked about the use of Ethoxyquin in premix meals.

But it's somewhat irrelevant based upon my initial statement regarding the limited number of Krill suppliers. One batch of Northfin tested at about 330ppm and another tested at about 70ppm (if I remember correctly). Any company using the same level of Krill in their products using meal from that same supplier.... who basically supplies everyone.... would have registered the same.

The EU regulations should bring some change as those suppliers now have to provide an Ehtoxyquin free product for use in the EU.

Since we introduce our own testing in late 2016, no incoming ingredients tested for any levels of ethoxyquin as it was ND (Not detected) in all reports. Same ingredients were coming in years before and to our knowledge nothing should be unusual what we receiving now.